And the way you do it clearly implies that you think I have no understanding of the concept of consent, which is extremely offensive.

Never said anything about your worth as a human being - you presume too much.

Define leveling. They left Saddam in power. Saddam's army wasn't even fighting for him, the majority of the armour "kills" were against abandoned tanks. In the second war with Iraq they used ground forces and grunts - it's not airpower that's keeping Iraq (more or less) under US control.

Xarog, I never said that you do not understand the concept of concent- but if that is the way you want to see it- go for it.

I told you what I found offensive- from my own personal female perspective. You have your views and I have mine- thank goodness for freedom of speech

I think I see where Xarog is coming from. In terms of taking a large number of women out of civilian life and placing them in the line of fire will surely affect the number of children produced in that time frame. But in our current world where population numbers are high, we would hardly notice the effects. If in the light of a world catastrophe where millions and millions die, yes I agree, our wombs may no longer belong to us... sad to say it, but I think there is some logic in that.

I have a friend in the USA who was in Iraq who lost his arm due to being shot whilst saving a woman soldier. They were in some street fighting, and they were on opposite sides of the road. The guy next to the girl had his head blown off and the woman (despite all that wonderful training) went into hysterics. My friend ran across the road to help her out and calm her down, and was shot as he did that.

Now, before you all say it I KNOW that the hysterics could have happened to a man too, seeing a friend having their head blown off. To me, a woman has a more sensitive side, be that hormonal, social-influences or whatever, women are generally more sensitive. My friend said for him, there were 2 things going on, 1 was to keep her quiet to avoid further detection, and secondly, he felt innately that he had to protect this woman. It was part of his upbringing to always protect women. I don't think war is a place for anyone, but women just add further complications to the whole thing.

Now, before you all say it I KNOW that the hysterics could have happened to a man too, seeing a friend having their head blown off. To me, a woman has a more sensitive side, be that hormonal, social-influences or whatever, women are generally more sensitive. My friend said for him, there were 2 things going on, 1 was to keep her quiet to avoid further detection, and secondly, he felt innately that he had to protect this woman. It was part of his upbringing to always protect women. I don't think war is a place for anyone, but women just add further complications to the whole thing.

If they have been selected and trained properly there should be no problem.

It might be that the US government in their desperation are sending soldiers who are not yet combat-ready. It's one of the reasons why the draft is a dumb idea. You end up with people who don't belong at the frontline getting themselves and other people killed.

There are plenty of women capable of handling the stress of combat. They may be genetically predisposed to being sensitive, but we have ample evidence that they can handle themselves in this type of situation.

I am always wary of stories like this because there are many men in the army looking for any excuse to keep women out. Men are going to have learn to get over their social conditioning and treat women like any other soldier in combat.

I don't think armies should be made soft to accommodate women, but it may be that the training methods have to be adapted since they have been honed with male psychology in mind.

Armed forces are a place for people who have the right mental and physical abilities.

People generally obviously have different talents, skills, strengths,weaknesses etc. I just don't think that's determined by whether you're male or female.

I totally agree with you.whatever we say of each other(on gender basis) is receiprocal.We are human beings more than any form of classification etc.factual evidence of what im saying can be seen in gays and lesbians (topic for anotherday)..."men are dogs" as it is commonly said.Does it apply to gays?We should break these stereotypes to enjoy each other's company holistically...

Xarog, I never said that you do not understand the concept of concent- but if that is the way you want to see it- go for it.

I told you what I found offensive- from my own personal female perspective. You have your views and I have mine- thank goodness for freedom of speech

'informing' me that there is such a thing as saying no can only mean that you think that I'm either not aware of the concept or that I don't know how to apply it. Otherwise why mention it at all?

Originally Posted by GamerGirl

I think I see where Xarog is coming from. In terms of taking a large number of women out of civilian life and placing them in the line of fire will surely affect the number of children produced in that time frame. But in our current world where population numbers are high, we would hardly notice the effects. If in the light of a world catastrophe where millions and millions die, yes I agree, our wombs may no longer belong to us... sad to say it, but I think there is some logic in that.

Except I didn't actually say that.

I never questioned who one's womb belongs to. However I'd like to see the woman (or man) who wouldn't feel obliged to procreate when faced with the problem of being one in only a handful of people who are of fertile age.

Originally Posted by nthdimension

I am always wary of stories like this because there are many men in the army looking for any excuse to keep women out. Men are going to have learn to get over their social conditioning and treat women like any other soldier in combat.

I say BS. You have two options : Either the two genders can treat each other differently on the basis of their gender, or they can ignore the gender differences.

The second one *sounds* right if we go by modern thinking, but as a straight man or woman are you really going to ignore gender when it comes to selecting who you go out on a date with?

Irrespective of whether men and women have different skills or not, the reality is that men and women are often courting each other in all sorts of obvious and subtle ways. Turning off that behaviour is not only extremely difficult, but probably detrimental to the creation of family/romantic bonds as a whole.

I'm personally not ready to give that up. I expect different things from women compared to men - and thus I'm going to treat the two genders differently. And I think subconciously that society still agrees, which is why guys are still being taught (despite alot of near militant feminism) to hold doors for girls and to look out for them and protect them (which goes against army training of course).

Finally, you claim that the conditioning is merely social. What evidence do you have for it not being genetic as well? I'd be flabbergasted if there wasn't at least some pre-programmed genetic behaviours coming to the fore when dealing with members of the opposite sex.

Nobody says anyone has to globally give up any particular behaviour. I work with women who are totally unfeminine when doing their job, and totally feminine outside their job. This is because they are professionals. Any soldier who cannot separate their normal social behaviour from the requirements of the battlefield does not belong in combat. Combat is a totally abnormal situation.

It's a male's instinctive behaviour to impregnate every female in sight. Shouldn't they just indulge this? We wouldn't want to interfere with the natural order of things.

Who you date is totally irrelevent in a situation that requires professionalism. In combat there are no men and women, there are only soldiers.

It's a male's instinctive behaviour to impregnate every female in sight. Shouldn't they just indulge this? We wouldn't want to interfere with the natural order if things.

Says who?

Many species tend to form monogamous relationships despite the fact that males could otherwise try and impregnate everything in sight. Humans, both male and female, usually form emotional bonds with each other and raise a family together. This is strong evidence suggesting that men are discriminate in choosing their partners.

Who you date is totally irrelevent in a situation that requires professionalism. In combat there are no men and women, there are only soldiers.

Yeah, and if such reactions are genetically hardwired, good luck overcoming them.

Humans, both male and female, usually form emotional bonds with each other and raise a family together.

Now you're confusing sex with emotion. Forming an emotional bond - companionship - is separate from propagating genetic material. Even women have been found to separate the source of the material for their offspring from their choice of companion. Someone with good genetic material does not necessarily make a good companion.

if such reactions are genetically hardwired, good luck overcoming them.

It's just what people who are professionals do. People who are too weak to handle this should not be in combat.

Regarding the army incident mentioned has anyone ever researched how often things like this happen, both how often women lose it in combat versus how often men do so, and whether when it involves a women it is more likely to result in injury or death to other soldiers.

Even in the current generation there are probably boys and girls being raised to believe that girls are weaker and need the protection of men. With this being the case we are not in a position to declare protecting women as purely based on an insurmountable instinct.

Now you're confusing sex with emotion. Forming an emotional bond - companionship - is separate from propagating genetic material. Even women have been found to separate the source of the material for their offspring from their choice of companion. Someone with good genetic material does not necessarily make a good companion.

This is the exception, not the norm.

It's just what people who are professionals do. People who are too weak to handle this should not be in combat.

More ipse dixit BS. Where's your sources for this?

Working in a 'professional' enviroment hardly kicks in one's survival instincts. One can easily be feminine in the workplace and still get the job done. Suggesting that one has to turn one's femininity off to be a professional is sexism.

On the other hand, the armed forces indoctrinates you into bonding with the rest of your unit so that you look out for each other and support each other. You become part of the 'team' in bootcamp. I wish I had R100 for every time I heard a grunt say that he was only fighting to help his 'buddies', the sum would make a nice wad of cash by now.

And yet you still haven't provided any backup for your claim that the way men and women interact with each other are the result of social standards rather than genetic hardwiring.

Originally Posted by noxibox

Has having women in the police force weakened the force?

I doubt it. But then again the police force is charged with keeping the peace, not with going out and killing the 'enemy'.

Even in the current generation there are probably boys and girls being raised to believe that girls are weaker and need the protection of men. With this being the case we are not in a position to declare protecting women as purely based on an insurmountable instinct.

I agree. I didn't see anyone claim its an insurmountable instinct either. All I said is that we cannot claim that it's not genetically based at least to some degree.

But to be honest I'd be shocked if there wasn't at least some genetic basis for it. Men are bigger and thus stronger than women on average. 1 man can easily do the work of 10 men in terms of siring a family - the reverse is not true of women, and thus women are the more valuable gender when it comes to the continuation of the human species. This in turn encourages the development of genetic behaviours in which men risk their lives to protect the lives of women.